Dec 1, 2007

it is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat

The January-February Lincoln-Douglas resolution has been released:

Resolved: It is just for the United States to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by nations that pose a military threat.

This site will provide analysis, links, and sources over the coming months, so watch this space. To start, the NFL has provided initial topic analysis and lessons here [MS Word]. A sample:

A good place to start is with an investigation of just war theory. Is war ever just? If so, what are the conditions for justness? In particular, what are the sufficient justifications for a preventive strike? What is the distinction between a preventive and preemptive strike? What is the relevance of that distinction? Does a strike against any military threat quality as self-defense? There is great depth and tradition in the philosophies that attempt to answer these questions and they are all receiving updates in light of recent global events.

Indeed. Even though this is another contextual "United States" resolution, just like the last one, it's at least broad enough to encompass many perspectives on justice, war, pacifism, and international relations. Furthermore, some of those definitions are critical. What counts as a nuclear weapon? What is a nation? To what degree must a nation pose a "military threat?" How urgent must the threat be? Does the resolution imply that the threat must be toward the United States, or would it include a unilateral action taken in the name of global security?

Some key search terms or definitions needed (and feel free to suggest your own in the comments):

148 comments:

Could one argue that all nations pose an inherent risk to the United States because their interests are by definition self serving, so the United States would then be obligated to universally prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons?

Interesting idea. You'd have to show the link between "self-serving" and "risk to the United States." It could be in a nation's best interests not to be a risk to the United States, at least at the present time.

Then you'd have to show that it's the United States' obligation to prevent--instead of, say, the UN--and that military force would be the just response. That's a lot of demonstration to do.

In short, why universalize it? The resolution lets us assume that some nations truly pose a military threat. We don't have to extend this into a universal situation--it's too much work for the Aff.

I guess my case would run on a value or criterion of pragmatism and be a bit abusive of aff. Clearly, it would draw heavily from Machiavelli, applied to world politics, so the assumption would be only the US is looking out for the US- not the IAEA or the UN.

Just because a nation isn't out to get us now, in the future they could. We know old alliances don't mean future friendships, look at us and "old Europe." Should we have let the US friendly Shah develop nuclear weapons in Iran? No, because we can't predict the future. It would have been great to have another deterrent on Russia's southern border but look- because a hostile Islamic regime would have had nuclear weapons in 79. We can't know what's going to happen in a country, so we can't assume. We didn't like USSR having nuclear weapons, but we could trust them to be semi responsible- but the dissolution of the USSR shows the opposite of Iran- proliferation of nuclear materials. We can't trust the IAEA to make distinctions that serve our interests.

One could also say that we are the only country other then Japan with the national conscience to have nuclear weapons responsibly, since we have seen the effects of these actions.

I wouldn't play that "lack of foresight" card too forcefully, since it undercuts using military force to prevent acquisition. We can't be certain that, given the state of the world, our intervention won't cause WWIII. We're not the only nuclear power, after all.

The last point could be turned, I think: that we have used nuclear weapons at all shows that our national conscience is weak. What about the Soviet Union, who showed similar restraint post-WWII, despite having thousands of nuclear weapons?

Also, saying that only the US (and maybe Japan) is responsible enough with nukes, even if warranted, might open up the arguer to a charge of ethnocentrism. (It doesn't help that President Truman, responsible for dropping not one, but two atomic bombs, described the strikes thusly: "When you have to deal with a beast you have to treat him as a beast." An opponent could argue that our possession of nuclear weapons makes such dehumanizing attitudes inherently riskier--and, even further, that other nations have a right to acquire nuclear weapons to deter us from attacking them.)

You can't let the opponent frame it as "lack of foresight." Nuclear weapons are so devastating the mere, far flung possibility of an internal coup (again, Iran) or external pressures causing dissolution and a loss of weapons (USSR) should preclude our favor. That's why the USSR didn't give Cuban nukes, they lent them, the same with the US and West Germany. Even in our most nuclear happy eras we were against proliferation to our allies or enemies. So my argument is supported by historical and political precedent. We have some foresight, but we don't have a crystal ball. As for military force, I again turn to the merits of Machiavelli on the international stage.

On to national conscience. Precisely because we used nukes means that we likely won't use them, no matter how retched our enemy in the future. Thats the internal force at work. The external deterrent our arsenal poses stops other nations. The USSR was deterred by the US, not by internal forces. In the international press, they (without merit) bat around the idea that Israel will use nukes on Iranian nuclear facilities in an instant, as if nukes aren't a big deal. There is no such discussion about a US nuclear strike on Iran, because American's would never find that justified. Of course this is ethnocentric, until you extend the argument to include a stance against nuke development in Western Europe and Israel, as well as proliferation stemming from South Africa. We are universally against nuclear development because it's against the U.S.'s interests anywhere. As such, counter intuitively, we should engage in arms reduction treaties to eliminate nukes in other countries- so we can prevent acquisition if they attempt to in the future.

Since the national trauma of bombing Japan, American's can't demonize their enemies. We won't intern Iranians in the same fashion as the Japanese internment camps- even the "unjust" incarceration of terrorists gives us uneasy feelings. Look at Vietnam, with Hanoi Jane and the protesters who went to North Vietnam. This is another internal deterrent of the use of nuclear weapons.

aaron, your opponent wouldn't be framing it as lack of foresight, since you already did. It's inconsistent to say, on the one hand, "We know old alliances don't mean future friendships, look at us and "old Europe." Should we have let the US friendly Shah develop nuclear weapons in Iran? No, because we can't predict the future."

and on the other,

"my argument is supported by historical and political precedent."

You've already shown that political and historical precedent is worthless.

Your argument is much better in your most recent post--but that's because it avoids such language as "we can't predict the future." That tends to cut off consequentialist / pragmatist considerations at the source.

For this new topic, I'm a little tired of the utilitarianism and deontolgy debates. Would be a good idea to say that the incentives of a nation justify its actions, in that since the United States is trying to prevent nuclear war, even if it fails, the actions (military force) is just?

This question applies to this and the past topic. Would saying that the resolution doesn't specify which United States (United States of Brazil, United States of Mexico, United States of America) be a good Kritik?

This topic seems to single out the nations that pose a military threat either to either the United States or the world as a whole. One could also ask, "Why prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons just by nations that pose a military threat? What about those that don't? Are they more responsible?" You could also ask, "Is it just/unjust because the United States is the one using this military force? Or is it just/unjust overall?" Also, the United States, the country with a devastating nuclear weapon arsenal at hand, preventing other countries from acquiring these types of weapons seems a little hypocritical. The US is taking the responsibility of global security on its own shoulders, whether or not it needs to.

anonymous 2, the "hypocrisy" charge is going to come up frequently, I'd imagine, by people who haven't thought it through. Though hypocrisy is distasteful, it's not necessarily unjust. A police officer who arrests someone for speeding is perfectly justified in doing so, even if she regularly speeds to work. The phrase "ad hominem tu quoque" comes to mind.

Well, this an odd resolution to say the least. It almost seems more like a puff topic. Anyways what would be a good kritik? I just had one used against me for the november/december topic and it was the first time i had even heard of one and i'm not a novice. So what would be a good kritik for this topic? even though i think they are stupid. it's always good to have one in mind if one is used against you.

Better yet, before the round starts, ask your judge what they look for in a round. If they say "no kritiks," your opponent is hosed at the outset. (They may say it in other ways, too: "No progressive nonsense." "Focus on the V/C." "I'm a traditionalist." "No game-playing.")

However you phrase it, please don't say "What's your paradigm?" Sound like a human being for at least a moment before the round.

Hi, I'm deciding to start working on this topic now instead of waiting until the last minute to write a case like the current topic.

I've been thinking about this topic for a while now, and I've just realized that I cannot come up with any negative arguments. I can only come up with affirmative arguments. Any ideas?

Also, why does the term "United States" mean so much for this resolution? Why can't it just say "It is just for a nation to use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons by other nations that pose a military thread?" I understand why it says "In the United States" for the current resolution, because the justice systems in other countries are all different, but I don't understand why for this resolution.

PL1149, I agree that the resolution could--or maybe should--be broadened. It might focus on the U.S., though, because of the "hypocrisy" factor. The U.S. has the world's largest nuclear weapons program, so perhaps, if justice has anything to do with equality or fairness, it's unfair for the U.S. to attempt to keep other nations from defending themselves against us. (As aaron notes above, Americans tend to see themselves as a defender, not as an aggressor. But that perception is not universally shared.)

To me it seems like the current resolution wanted to infer Iraq, Iran, North Korea...but I think they're trying to stay away from directly having a topic on Iraq or Iran concidering everyone's a little tired of having topics on it...

A few points/questions to take it on from a different angle. (I found in my last tournament it helps to throw expirienced debaters off-balance with wierd [but not rediculous] v/vc arguments.)

1. How can you define and back up justice on an internaitonal level? Also, could you argue states only exist for the sake of individuals so giving "each his due" is more importand than internaitonal law? (which is not neccasarily just.)

2. Is it possible, maybe with a definition of "for", to frame the resolution to say "a situation in which the united states intervenes to stop a country posing a military threat from aquiring nuclear weapons is just?" then, all you would have to do is demonstrate how someone is wronged in the procces. (especially if you go with individuals being key.)

3. It is key to define "military action." This is definitly NOT the same as war. (Think Israel's 1984 airstrike on that iraqi reactor.)

4. What percentage of the time would military action have to be justified to prove/disprove the resolution?

5. Coud you argue the action of any state (or at least, any democratic state) is justified? (This worked well for me as a neg in plea bargaining. I said that any definition besides one of "conforming to law" was subjective, so the only remaining one was "conforming to law." I won with it more than i lost; although i don't know if that logic would work with this resolution.)

either way, I think it's key to focus on the value/vc/definitions, not the nitty-gritty of internaitonal politics. (This is comign from someone hwo is fascinated with the latter.)

I really can't think of any decent arguments on the neg besides pacifism, but I've never seen anything that legitimately links pacifism to justice(all I can find is pacifism linking to morality). Any ideas on where I could find the link? Also, I was wondering if you could argue that the use of military force poses a greater threat to security than countries possessing nukes. (I think it would be hard to warrant)

I also just thought of the most abusive interpretation of the resolution you could possibly run: "Just" can mean "only," as in, "It is just for you that I give my heart, my love."

Then, you could say that the resolution is trying to put the U.S. out there as the only nation that can use military force to prevent nuclear proliferation. Set up a straw man, and knock it right down, using the arguments above.

(I do not recommend actually interpreting the resolution that way in a debate. You're likely to draw laughs, incredulous stares, or a stern lecture from a teed-off judge.)

Nice try, simon, at deleting your own comment. (Simon had originally posted "i think ur gay" under his own nickname. Oops.) I'm going to leave all three of them up there, so people will associate ad hominem, non sequitur, inappropriateness, arrogance, and homophobia with you.

Unless you plan to share something of value, don't bother commenting again. All off-topic or mean-spirited wastes of everyone's time will be erased.

-Could you say that the US doesnt have enough troops in the first place.-Actions like this resolution should be left in the UN.-The long famous saying."Help yourself before you can help others" and then help family before you help others....

help! I'm new to LD and this debate topic sounds hard! My classmate has been helping me, but sometimes i just don't understand. In a round, it's hard for me to flow and defend myself (and attack someone else). I'm just too TIMID! Please help me.

Jim, this is really helpful. I'm a novice ld debator and i really need help stocking counter arguments on a realism case. Realism is complicated to me and i quite dont understnad it, well, kinda.. First of all are there any arguments for realism? Thanks!

Suzanna T, political realism is a philosophy best summed up by Hans Morgenthau, its leading proponent. One of its most important tenets:

"Realism maintains that universal moral principles cannot be applied to the actions of states in their abstract universal formulation, but that they must be filtered through the concrete circumstances of time and place. The individual may say for himself: "Fiat justitia, pereat mundus (Let justice be done, even if the world perish)," but the state has no right to say so in the name of those who are in its care. Both individual and state must judge political action by universal moral principles, such as that of liberty. Yet while the individual has a moral right to sacrifice himself in defense of such a moral principle, the state has no right to let its moral disapprobation of the infringement of liberty get in the way of successful political action, itself inspired by the moral principle of national survival. There can be no political morality without prudence; that is, without consideration of the political consequences of seemingly moral action. Realism, then, considers prudence-the weighing of the consequences of alternative political actions-to be the supreme virtue in politics. Ethics in the abstract judges action by its conformity with the moral law; political ethics judges action by its political consequences."

If anyone claims political realism is a-moral, they are mistaken. It is empirical, looking to the real actions and motives of nations rather than purported principles, but it does not deny the importance of values in decisionmaking. It's only that prudence trumps them all.

Whether prudence works best for the Neg or the Aff is left to the arguer to decide.

I think a fun K to run on the Neg would be threat con. :D Granted it may be kind of a stock Neg, but it's definitely fun nevertheless. I'd also throw in some discourse stuff in there, maybe as a time suck. Anyways, I'm excited on this topic! YAY!

Rabbit87, a kritik (debate-spelling for "critique") is an argument that attacks the framing of the resolution, rather than setting up an advocacy on either side. A racism kritik, for example, would say, "The resolution is worded to advance racist interests, and should therefore be rejected." Traditionalist judges despise kritiks, which create a meta-debate, while progressives usually tolerate them. (The new NFL ballots have language discouraging kritiks, so watch out.)

I wouldn't use the phrase "veil of ignorance," which is connected to a specific theory of justice (Rawls'). However, you're right that the resolution doesn't directly say that the threat is toward the United States. It's implied, the Aff can argue--but they have to make that argument. So your response--it's the UN's job--is a potential Neg argument, certainly.

I think you mean Kant, and I'm sure you probably could. I don't really understand it fully, so I wouldn't.

Now to my question: Would you say that by "pose a threat" the resolution means "Is a possible threat" and by "threat" the resolution means "threat to the United States?" Because there are about 10 variables to this resolution and all of them could make sense.

i have ideas for the neg..but i cannot think of ANYTHING for the affirmative...the onl thing that comes to mind is national security..not to mention, i still have not came across a good def. for "military force"....ideas for aff....def...anyone?

If "just" means "morally right," then show that the United States has a moral obligation to protect its citizens from a nuclear strike. Show that a nuclear weapon warrants the use of force, because nukes are not only incredibly destructive, but cannot be defended against using traditional means, especially when deterrence fails. Check out the Zupan link above.

ok. i think this is a veryyy hard topic...the plea-bargaining resolution was much easier, because its easy to say what would happen with/without it. so is it just?

for the aff case...i really cant think of anything. there's too many things going on, like it says using military force, and only on countries that HAVEN'T aquired nuclear weapons, because it says to prevent it, so we don't know if they have them or not (how do we know whether or not they have them? China is secretive, for example, how can we be sure of any of this), it also says nation, which is different from a country, and they have to already pose a military threat. What defines a military threat? What if it doesn't pose a military threat, but they are going to aquire weapons, but they pose a threat to other countries? Then the resolution doesnt apply?

On aff, could you say that nuclear weapons altogether are "bad?" Say, for example, that first the United States should get all other nations weapons and then "destroy" them along with their own. It's a long shot, but if it'd work it would be hard for the neg to use the hyprocrisy arguement. Also, for the neg's side I've not a clue of what to do for value, critera, or contentions. Help? Please?

I agree that this resolution is very difficult because of all of its variables. My strategy will basically try and cover all the bases and saying that when you use military force to prevent the acquisition of nuclear weapons it does x,y,z inherently to cut down on the topicality arguments. I think the aff could be really abusive here, and I would advise a set of counter definitions to try and prevent the abuse. However, for my negative, I have been having a hard time finding evidence that outlines the bad impacts of war etc. (It seems pretty intuitive, but I'd really like some philosophy based evidence.) Either way, keep up the blogging Jim, it's always an interesting read.

Okay, for all of you who are looking for a definition of military threat, here is a good one: something that is a threat to military operations, installations, personnel, materials and to the nation of the military threatened

ok...i think this would be a very interesting case for the neg...run that the destruction of the US is good, so we should allow nuclear arrms to be attained, so that we are destroyed (show the rising anti-american attitude in several counties and such)...or you could use it as the aff and say by launching a preemptive strike we (the US) become the aggressors, and, in turn, would be destroyed by anti-US counties. But iono. Just a crazy idea.

an interesting card for the aff: Richard C. Bush III, director of the Center for Northeast Asian Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution, says, "Most experts would define 'threat' to mean a combination of capability and intentions. There's no question that China is building up its capabilities, but China has displayed no intentions of using those capabilities against the United States."

if we use this as a scope to view a 'military threat' then we can determine that this 'threat' has the capability AND the intention of using its capabilities (nukes, which it is attempting to gather) against the US.

using the just war theory (jus ad bellum), i think it would be fairly easy to prove everything just...since war is the 'last resort' you would have to prove the threat imminent (sp), but that will be the hardest part. However, if we view the threat as having the intention to harm the US, then out of obligation of protecting its citizens, it should launch a 'protective' strike. After all, 5000 lives lost is MUCH better than millions. Also, it would not violate the international law in the status quo...which imo is why you need to prove immenence (sp)...because 'The U.S. still maintains, in its National Security Strategy, the right to strike first as part of its war on terror.'

sorry if the post is skippy but these are all just thrown together ideas ive had in the last 5-6 minutes.

'consult plan' off cases could work for this resolution couldnt they? Like, (before taking any military action, we should consult (random name) who exists in the state of nature, protected by the ghost of mearsheimer, and who has agreed to help only the neg. He has agreed to work in cooperation with the US's will by removing nuclear arms while keeping the peace. This would not be regarded as a military strike, because he is a force of nature. However, US military personel may not be around him when any such actions are carried out, otherwise he will be abandoned by mearsheimer, be unable to turn into the Hulk, and unable to complete his mission. If you are asking for a warrant for this argument then obviously you do not understand the relative power of (blank)...he is maximizing it) lol. make sure you say like a real person that way people can't be like (blank) isnt real. Even better if you can get that person in your round to nod his head when you suggest to consult..would be funny. With this setup the consultation would impact only for the neg, obviously, but i think him being protected by the ghost of mearsheimer would protect you from realism frameworks? And then the maximization of relative power warrant...lol.

About the UN argument: one could say that it's not the US's proper role to go around acting as the world cop. The United Nations, instead, through the framework of international law, has the authority and responsibility to maintain peace. I go over that argument in more detail here.

Jim, I know this is outlandish and entirely untraditional. But, what do you think of valuing entertainment, and then having a VC of dancing or something. Then i would link the V and VC to kritikal issues and have positive impacts as well as attacking my opponent. I think it would be good, because it would force people to ACTUALLY consider why they value justice, instead of just because the resolution implies it. Plus, how fun would that be?

hmmm...mcdonalds...ingenious!! lol. but seriously...entertainment is a prerequisite to LD...without that factor, then people would stop wanting to join. I am running the destroy the US good case tho. By defining a 'military threat' as possessing nuclear weapons. Then i am saying the US will have to attack all of these nations, we will lose, and inherently create justice, because the united states will die.

im not sure how you would warrant that idea...like what would u even say? Hunger causes anger. By putting a mcdonalds everywhere on the globe...there would be no angry people...lol. Or, since everyone loves mcdonalds (im lovin' it), we can make mcdonalds (who is corperately american) put tiny microchips in all their burgers and nuggets that will cause peacefulness in all of their consumers. In this way, the military action would not be required and peace/justice would be created for all eternity. -Ronald McDonald.

Would it be legitimate to view terrorist groups as nations themselves? The definition of a nation isn't necessarily just a country. If we can make that link, wouldn't it be easy to say that terrorist groups have proven an intent to harm, and it is therefore just for the U.S. to take military action against them? I was just wondering if that sounded usable to anyone.

anonymous, most definitions of "nation" involve a *large* group of people either under a government or seeking government power. If you can find a terrorist group that meets that description (that will somehow defeat, say, a definition based on international law), then good luck to you. Otherwise, just go with the risk argument: terrorist groups seek nuclear weapons from states that threaten the US, which is risk enough. If Al-Qaeda picks up a dirty bomb from, say, North Korea, they'll definitely employ it.

novice, hmm... one problem would be, who's the "greatest number" the utilitarian approach would refer to? The US only, or the entire world? There would be other issues, of course. Not sure about Utility as a criterion.

Anonymous, if you email it to me, I can post it on a prominent place for criticism.

novice, combined with a value of justice, they might argue that national sovereignty must be respected within a framework of international law, and that it would thus be unjust for the U.S. to take unilateral action.

Also, they might point out that the U.S. already owns several thousand warheads, and thus to preserve their own national sovereignty, other nations should have the right to defend themselves against U.S. aggression, even if that means they become a threat to the United States.

HEY Jim Anderson, would saying that attemps by the U.S. to aqquire nuclear wepons with millitary force from major nations that pose a threat like N. Korea or Iran and so on, would cause conflict and violate their rights therefor making it unjust; be a good argument

1)Also does the united states have the right to take the other nations wepons away from them? If not could you send me some evidence and If not then could i say that since other nations dont have the right to take away our nuclear wepons then we should not have the right to take away theirs, because only the UN has the right

2)Also does the UN have to right to take away nuclear wepons form other nations that are not part of itIf u have some evidence on weather or not the UN can take away the nuclear wepons from other nations that are not part of it or if they are could u send me some evidence or post it

The first argument: causing conflict might be bad, but not necessarily unjust. (It would depend on the criterion.) Violating their rights is definitely unjust.

1) and 2): As far as I know, in international law only signatories of nonproliferation agreements have a legal obligation to not acquire nukes. The US would justify its actions as "anticipatory self-defense," while the UN has no authority on its own to prevent acquisition via military action. See here, for example (although it's a little old, and further research is warranted).

"Proliferation is not illegal under international law if the government involved is not, at that time, a member of the NPT regime. On the other hand, preemptive strikes against states not at war is illegal in international law! So, too, are any nuclear strikes against NPT members! (Note 100) In all but the rarest of cases, i.e., anticipatory defensive action taken to ward off an impending attack, U.S. policy should follow the United Nations Charter and the law of nations. The sovereignty of other states ought to be respected and non-military means should be used in very nearly every case in pursuing U.S. counter-proliferation policy."

Since 9/11, although international law regarding sovereignty hasn't always changed in the letter, the interpretation has changed, at least by actors such as the United States.

Oh, and see here: "Currently international law does not explicitly permit the use of interdiction as a tool of counterproliferation.... The verdict on whether the Proliferation Security Initiative is 'legal' under international law has yet to be established. Since international law is often vague, and difficult to enforce, it will be impossible to determine legality of the PSI." (From 2004)

I was discussing this topic with a few other people, and somebody said it would be a good idea for the Aff to argue that there should be NO nuclear weapons at all. The only problem is, though, it could be argued that the U.S. would then be acting hypocritical--how should this be refuted?

mvil, I'll quote myself from up above: 'the "hypocrisy' charge is going to come up frequently, I'd imagine, by people who haven't thought it through. Though hypocrisy is distasteful, it's not necessarily unjust. A police officer who arrests someone for speeding is perfectly justified in doing so, even if she regularly speeds to work. The phrase 'ad hominem tu quoque' comes to mind."

Ok so i was just at the library with a friend doing research. We have got alot of ideas for VC and arguements against aff. We don't have very many firm contentions for neg and none for aff. So if someone has some sites or book or anything that could help.

i got an idea for aff and all i can think of issaves lives of innocentsthings all have double effects and when trying to do something for the greater, some bad does take place. You cannot value the safety of 6 countries over the safety of 200 more countries. Nukes allow countries to infringe upon the right to security. A country w/ nukes can use a threat to infringe upon the saftey of a country so getting rid of the core, can get rid of the problem.n thats all the ideas i goti need MUCH MUCH MUCH more aff.and another thought to answer the question on 'whos the military threat'well..simply all countries are candidates. Since the military force isnt towards the US specifically, all countries are candidates b/c they pose threats to one another is different ways.[thats my thoughts on that]and yea..i need ALOT of affaim me...geelookitsmeif u have any ideas

ok. tell me if this sounds coherent. alright. on the neg, i was running a contention that basically said it's not the job of the united states to be enforcing these policies (or whatever they are). the U.S. in this world sphere is acting as an individual with self serving ideas. as such, they would only prioritize those countries which were a threat to them (example of India/Pakistan). therefore, because the US has too much interest(self preservation) invested into this situation they shouldn't be the ones who get to take military action against other countries.....does that sound ok? im still organizing it in my brain.

confizzled, the risk of terrorists acquiring nukes via a "rogue regime" is a definite Aff angle to take. So is the Zupan analysis, linked above, that states that nuclear weapons destroy traditional rules of conflict, and are thus unjust.

ET, the UN, through the NPT and IAEA, definitely sees itself as taking the proper role as the nuclear watchdog. Along the US "self-interest" line, look at our actions in Iraq and our response to Iran. There's plenty of Neg ground there.

anonymous, I don't know if anyone's made that specific argument. It's fairly uncontroversial in international law (and political philosophy) that nations have a right to self-defense, but whether that encompasses a nuclear weapon is debatable. You could certainly argue, though, that in today's asymmetric world, nuclear weapons are the "great equalizer," allowing weaker nations to defend themselves against larger threats. (It could be why India and Pakistan haven't erupted into full-blown conflict in the last decade.)

hello, I have a clearification to make.For Affirmative, we are saying that it is just for United States to use military force, and in Negative, we will be arguing that it is unjust for United States to use nuclear weapons..i just wanted to make sure i am on the right path..Thankyou

On the affirmative - I have a good connection between justice and human rights, but I'm struggling to prove that preemptive force best protects human rights. Any suggestions on which direction I should look for evidence?

i think affirmative will have a had time to win a round...we have to prove so many things...i will get to my question, these are my defintion for justics: conformity to truth, fact, or reason : The principle or ideal of just dealing or right actionbut i dont think this is a solid definition...i was more likely looking for a definition which united nations would have...where can i find a better definition for justice both for my affirmative and my negative..thankyou

i have read alot on this blog as well as the Zupan link provided but i still do not know different forms of 'military force'How can the US stop a country form acuiring weapons w/o engaging in aggression or a war?How will military blockades stop countries from acquiring such weapons?I am trying to find non-violent ways to use 'military force.'So please help out

eventhough united states is trying to block nuclear weapons from other countries..inorder to do so, where did the united states got the power to use military force on other countries?..also, had united nation given power to keep nuclear weapons only for u.s. and not other countries?

So.. I'm from a very traditionalist region, so I'm trying with great difficulty to write an aff that isn't completely stock, but isn't the Golden Arches Stability Theory either (Loved the idea though lol). I've been playing with a legitimacy based Aff, trying to argue that the nation that tries to acquire WMD's becomes illegitimate. An illegitimate nation is threatening to global stability, and the United States, as a Member-State to the United Nations, has an obligation to promote global stability. Thus, the US is justified in using military force, because their actions are righteous, in that they are trying to correct a wrong.

The biggest problems:1) Finding an impact between governmental legitimacy and the acquisition of nukes while simultaneously keeping the US legit eventhough we have nukes. Hypocrisy hurts a little here.

This might not fly, but nevertheless any insight, comments, advice, or straight up shove its would be appreciated.

zach...what you are saying about hypocrisy and so forth isnt that much of a problem..hypocrisy isnt unjust...just because u are a hypocrite doesnt make ur actions unjust..thats the way i see it..its up to u to use it

Okay for aff-Justice as my valueSaftey as critereon and then the concept of double effect as my weighing mechanism. like saying-even though we cause some harm by using military force, we still gain the side-effect that the military threat is removed. I wanted to run this as my criterian but idk if that'll work in local circuits. What do you think?

Anonymous- For aff, safety as a criterion would work, but it is not as strong as your aff case could be.Here's an idea for neg: use diplomacy as a value criterion. That way, instead of using pacifism as a criterion and having the aff call your case not facing reality. Diplomacy works so that you can present an alternate to aff. Anyone agree?

Here is the plan:I am going to run security as a value on the aff,"at the point where a nation poses military threat the U.S. has an obligation to use military force in order to pervent aqusition of nuclear weapons to that nation.

Also, I'm trying to avoid saying every nation who has weapons poses a military threat.

DD, it should be quite easy to show that the United States has an obligation to maintain its security. However, the problem lies in showing that it has an obligation to use military force in those efforts. You'd have to show that nuclear weapons are such a grave threat (and the Zupan analysis is helpful here) that inaction or diplomacy or any other nonmilitary strategy is ineffectual to the point that it's a form of criminal negligence.

Hey Jim, maybe you can help me out. Where can I find evidence to support the following contention: Almost all nations pose a military threat to some other nation, so affirming this resolution would support using military force against almost everyone, which would obviously not protect lives or promote national security. (This resolution does not specify military threat to the United States; It simply says a military threat.)

anonymous, your reading of the resolution is defensible, and even intuitively strong, but if your opponent has a well-crafted definition of "military threat," it's a non-starter. Certainly nations that aren't a threat to us--India, for example--are threats to other nations--like Pakistan. That is uncontroversial. Whether you can extend that to all or even most nations is the hard part.

Ok, In my case, I am upholding that nuclear weapons pose a threat to our citzens inalienable rights, therefore it is the OBLIGATION of the united states to use military force, but I just cant think of any more arguments, can anyone help?

Ok, In my case, I am upholding that nuclear weapons pose a threat to our citzens inalienable rights, therefore it is the OBLIGATION of the united states to use military force, but I just cant think of any more arguments, can anyone help?

Thanks for the quick response! I think my main problem is finding evidence to support said contention because it basically explains itself. If I can't find any evidence then I guess I'll change my position. Although I think the best bet for a negative case is to take advantage of the ambiguous wording of the resolution.

So I need to qual for state at my next tournament...I need some major help. I wrote a neg case that has never failed me- but I can't seem to win any aff arguements. I'm running Justice, saftey..and an observation about "Double Effect" -A just action is one that produces good consequences, the ends outweigh the means..that kind of thing. My contentions only explain why nuke war is bad, and since using military force would for sure prevent this, according to thomas aquines and his double effect doctrine and according to consequentuilsm...it would be just. So what am I doing right? What can I do to improve/streangthen my case? Thanks

my coach said that using preservation of rights for the basis of my case isnt strong? I thought that if I show that nuclear weapons are a threat to our rights, and it is the united states has an obligation to protect them, then it has to be just?

i ran into a neg case this past weekend saying that military force increases preemptive war..and thats not good, because people are no longer safe and we should avoid preemptive war. that is why MF is unjust.and me as aff i used just war theory to justify it...and i pointed out that i have justified war...how ever my opponent was unable to UNjustify it...and there is no such thing as a "just war" according to some scholar...and this was in semis...and this boy was state qualled already. So i lost, =[and i need ideas to build my aff case against this.

Okay at my last tournament when arguing affirmative I had several people say that anyone who possesses a nuclear weapon poses a military threat. However, I'm confused because by saying this they are implying that our allies who possess nuclear weapons pose a threat to us.So what would be good argument against the argument that everyone with nukes is a threat?

ok, jim..wat u are saying abt how the resolution implies that the threat is towards the US, cant the neg say it implies towards the whole world, since the US is the agent of action...while the threat can be to anyone?n 2nd.u say prevent the acquisition.and u say that nations that do not hold nukes.but the resolution clearly states 'that pose a military threat'how will a that doesnt have nukes pose a threat to the US..or any other nation for that matter?not only that...isnt the resolution implying the face the us is using this 'force' to stop nations that ARE a threat?and can u please answer my comment above...the neg case that i ran into.i really need help

ok, jim..wat u are saying abt how the resolution implies that the threat is towards the US, cant the neg say it implies towards the whole world, since the US is the agent of action...while the threat can be to anyone?n 2nd.u say prevent the acquisition.and u say that nations that do not hold nukes.but the resolution clearly states 'that pose a military threat'how will a nation that doesnt have nukes pose a threat to the US..or any other nation for that matter?not only that...isnt the resolution implying the fact the us is using this 'force' to stop nations that ARE a threat?and can u please answer my comment above...the neg case that i ran into.i really need help

Um, so I was thinking for my NEG case, part of it would be really focused on the twisted way I would define "military threat" -but, are there any definitions of "military threat" that either imply or assert the likelihood of miscalculation of such a threat? Or how this "threat" is just generally perceived as present, but in reality... nuclear threats are exaggerated and it's unlikely to turn into true action?

s.r. Sorry, I don't "cut cards." I blog, and read articles, and write analysis, but that's as far as I go. I'm a coach, not a competitor.

confizzled, I've discussed the nuances of "threat" elsewhere--look at the top of the post, in the updates. There may be a crucial difference between "are a threat" (your words) and "pose a threat" (the way the resolution is framed). Perception of a threat sometimes equals reality of a threat, which makes a good definition crucial.

As far as defending "just war" goes, I'll put up a post later this week, when I have more time. I can't answer your question too specifically, because I have no idea how your opponent knocked down Just War.

Any nation with a military can be a "military threat" to the U.S., depending on the circumstances. Nuclear weapons aren't the only deadly weapons in the world.

screwddddd, your question has been answered, at least tentatively, in one of the links above.

I've been reading all the posts on this site,and found them extremely helpful as I am trying LD debate for the first time. Thanks a lot!

Anyways, I was wondering....if you were affirmative and define "justice" as something, does the negative have to go along with the affirmatives definition? Or can neg bring up his/her own def on "justice"?

Anonymous, look at some of the links above. Otherwise, ask a specific question, and I'll do my best to answer.

Envy, you should offer a counterdefinition if you think the Affirmative's definition is slanted, incomplete, or otherwise unhelpful to your arguments. Consider two alternate definitions for "justice"--fairness and "giving each their due." Those might mean radically different things. Throw in "conforming with moral rightness," and you have a major debate over which definition is best.

i dont know how my judge bought his arg.but i pointed out that he dropped the just war threory..all he says is that there is no such thing as a just war accordint to sum man n wat not.i didnt buy it.his value was.justice- consistent w/ wat is morally rightand his v/c was- prevention of war.for his value, i argued that there is not brightline to exactly is morally right..b/c all nations have diff. morals n that def. cant be upheld.and for his crit.i argues..well...how do u know whether or not a war is just?obvioulsy the JWT.n then he says..there is no such thing as a just war.n that the JWT should not be looked upon as a voting issue n wat notn thenhe won.n he later on changed him crit. to prevention of preemtive war..n the judge followed i guess..any ideas?

i need help. i can't overcome that whole calling the us hypocritical. ive been thinking of examples but nothing really fits. the one thing about u comparing the u.s. to a police officer doesn't quite fit. I mean, sure he's right in giving tickets but doesn't he threaten the lives of others by breaking the law and driving at unsafe speeds? That is unjust.

confizzled, without JWT, if he's advocating pacifism, he's essentially forced to sit back when another country invades. "There is no just war" is hopelessly naive. I'll post more on this later this weekend.

douglincoln, the resolution doesn't say the US has to be entirely just in its actions. It focuses on one action. If you define justice as "moral rightness" or as "getting what you deserve," then it doesn't matter who is dispensing justice, if the focus is on the morality or justice of the action, and not the agent.

Otherwise, there's the abolition option, which I link to above. It may be feasible, but it's a whole case to itself.

HELLO, in my aff, i am practically basing off my case about rogue nations..one of my contention is about north korea and second one is about iraq..when i was running rounds, my opponent asked me, why are we letting other countries like great britian or russia to have nuclear weapons?..how can we be sure that they wont attack us?..how can i argue agaisnt that..

They're non-resolutional. They pose no military threat (using the definition I've linked to above, which notes both capability and intention). Besides, with those nations, deterrence would work; they're not selling weapons to terrorists, either, which is one of the biggest problems for a diplomatic-only approach to nonproliferation.

Hi for my neg case my value is the inallieable right of soverignty and my criterion is Kants autonomy of will, but im having trouble coming up with valid points please if anyone can help it would be greatly appriciated

anonymous3, you certainly could. Does the resolution permit attacking someone who already has nukes, though?

Ginnygirl, all throughout the links above are ideas for cases, and in the comments, too. I'd suggest a value of justice and self-preservation or the social contract or just war theory as a criterion, and go from there.

To all, the quality and timeliness of your question are directly proportional to the quality of the answer. Be specific, and you'll get specific help.

okay you said to be more specific so here is my value and criterion for my negg any critiques would be nice thanks alot Sanctity of life is the simple thought that life is sacred, life cannot be replaced by anything so ought to be viewed as the highest value in today’s debate. Criterion: Kant’s autonomy of will.According to Kant morality is possible only because of the existence of the rational good will in human beings, a freedom of choice which is not coerced by anything but itself. The autonomous will adheres to its own dictates. No one can possibly force a person will to do what he does not choose to do. Although a person may force a child to do an unpleasant act he cannot make a child will to do it, unless the child so chooses for himself. The only way to make another individual will coincide with one’s own is to reason with him: if rational persuasion fails no other just way remains open. If the will in the human being is forced to change then the human being is defeated thus harming the sanctity of life.

anonymous, do nations have the same sort of "autonomy of will?" The US is the agent of action in the resolution, so we have to apply the criterion to its actions.

Sanctity of Life seems like a strong value. You would want to show that the affirmative would lead to more violence through preemptive war, by violating sovereignty, and by otherwise causing international chaos. If your criterion was global stability or prudence (a key concept in "political realism"), that might work. Others are welcome to chime in and suggest alternates.

i am a novice ld'er and i basicly have my case but i need about one more contention i really like the whole abolition argument for aff and i have a basic understanding on how to run it but i keep running into problems can you give me a little more help with that?

Hi, I am working on redoing my neg case and I am working on my second contention.My CV is justice and VC is national sovereignty. For my second contention I am trying to say something like "It is not the US's job to police the world", however, I can't really fortify this very well. I'd appreciate some help.

CB3, whatever reason you offer has to be just under the criterion of national sovereignty. Two reasons I could see: 1. Preemption violates sovereignty, and is an excuse for hegemony and 2. Preemption violates international law, which is based on sovereignty, and such problems ought to be within the province of a global institution. (There are some analytical pieces linked to up above.)